IRJET-Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Two RC Buildings with Irregularities under Varying Se by IRJET Journal

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF TWO RC BUILDINGS WITH IRREGULARITIES UNDER VARYING SEISMIC ZONES Dheekshith K1, Naveen Kumar M S2 1 Assistant

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Srinivas School of Engineering, Mangalore, India Tech Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Srinivas School of Engineering, Mangalore, India ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------2M.

Abstract - An Construction of high rise structures is carried by the owner, structural engineers, architect also the contractor. Architects as well as structural design engineer’s plays vital role in construction of tall RC structures, Engineers build good infrastructures in metro political cities under various seismic zones. Structural design engineers have to understand seismic performance of buildings to carryout analysis also to carryout design for various structural elements in tall structures, also they are very challenged to make decision making while designing the elements under different seismic zones. Structural engineer’s community need to build the structures respond to dynamic behavior, they have better understanding as well as aim for seismic design. The discussion work is complicated with contrast of the seismic evaluation of RC building with vertical as well as mass irregularities under seismic zones II and zone IV, the linear static method of analysis remains approved out according IS 1893:2016 (Part 1). Outcome of this analysis is discussed in terms of lateral displacement, story drift as well as story shear.

Key Words: Lateral displacement, story drift, story shear, ETABS.

1.INTRODUCTION Earthquakes are carefully studied by many scholars in previous years, took much time to estimate the earthquakes also these earthquakes are most anticipated. Most of the structural design engineers design the structures mainly to assess the safety, stiffness also parameters performance of structures under various seismic zones. Special codes provisions and guidelines are used to design the buildings. Earthquakes may be due to energy released at focus in rocks for the movements. Many researchers had worked a lot to resist the seismic structures without causing any damage to structures also loss of life, under seismic force many structures are failed due to presence of irregularities but regular configuration structures are performed better during seismic loading. Vertical irregularities will be relevant reason to gradual modification of strength, stiffness, mass also the geometry of the building that is oriented vertically, it is the point for weakness where there will be discontinuity in dynamic characteristic mass, stiffness, geometry also strength of building also the presence of uneven scattering of mass, toughness, strength of structure along elevation of structure. These may lead to discontinuity of elements also tend to give gap and those gaps between the elements

Impact Factor value: 7.211

initiates the weakness in the structure, thus weakness leads to collapse of the building beneath the earthquake loads. 1.1 SCOPE OF STUDY The Reinforced concrete building is performed under the action of seismic analysis mainly the enactments of those buildings be subject to the classification of building as well as configuration of the building. Regular building is symmetric in plan will perform well under the seismic loading without creating the complications in designing of elements of the regular building, whereas the building with vertical irregular building will not perform well under earthquakes thus it may create weakness between elements in adjacent storey of the building which leads to severe damage of the building, to avoid the collapsing of building it is better to build the structure in simple in plan, regular configuration, minimum lateral strength thus provides lateral stiffness to the building so that sectional properties are uniformly distributed along height of the structure. Many architectures are to create the building in simple manner as well as to avoid the complicated designs for structural engineers. Main intension of structural engineers is to resist the structural collapse of buildings under the action of dynamic loads. Nowadays in urbanization the construction of vertical irregularities configuration must be resisted in modelling as well as analyzing the irregular building these irregularities in structures may create loss of economy also loss of life’s, therefore the structural engineers take challenge for construction building with different configurations during the expected earthquakes. 1.2 DISPASSIONATE OF STUDY The succeeding leading dispassionate of thesis: a.

In present thesis the two irregular tall RC building of G+10+H is modelled with combine of soft story of height 3.5m for the ground floor also with mass irregularity mainly i.e. swimming pool at top floor of the building.

Study the combined effect of stiffness vertical irregularity-soft story as well as mass irregularity of tall RC building under dynamic loading.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 81

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

Linear static analysis method is conducted for seismic zone-II and zone-IV according to IS 1893:2016 (part 1), for medium type soil (Type 2). Two models are modeled for different zones also analyzing by Linear Static analysis with help of ETABs software. Combine effect of stiffness irregularity as well as mass irregularity on lateral displacement, story drifts, also story shear are studied.

Comparisons is made between two models of different zone-2 as well as zone-5 in X and Y directions based on, lateral displacement, story drifts, story shear.

To know the presentation of the structure.

3.NARRATIVE OF MODEL Two Reinforced concrete buildings of G+10+H storey of area (20*30) mare modeled, this model consist of Staircase, Lifts, at top floor the structure consist of head room and provided with swimming pool. In this method of seismic analysis is performed with help of ETABS software. those building contains stiffness irregularity mainly soft story height 3.5m at ground floor, typical floors height as 3.0m as well as mass irregularity mainly swimming pool 12.26kN/m2 at top floor presumptuous bays in X- direction is 5m, bays in Y direction is 6m in horizontal ways, all columns are fixed at ground, linear static analysis is performed under seismic zone-II and zone-IV.

3.2BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS a. Material assets Young’s modulus of (M25) concrete Density of reinforced concrete Young’s modulus of steel Density of steel Density of Masonry Poisson’s ratio Compressive strength of concrete at 28th days

25*1000

kN/m3

25kN/m3 2*105 kN/m2 Fe500 20 kN/m3 0.2 25 N/mm2

(20*30) m G+10+H Residential building 3.5m 3.0m 36.5m 5m

Impact Factor value: 7.211

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

direction Span between bays in Ydirection Swimming pool is provided on terrace floor Swimming pool area Depth of swimming pool Volume of swimming pool

6m 33.5m (10x6) m 1.25m (10x6x1.25) = 75m3

c. Member properties Thickness of slab Thickness of swimming pool slab Columns size for the building Beam dimensions for the building, B1 Beam dimensions for the building, B2 Thickness of wall

150mm 200mm (800x600) mm (600x300) mm (400x250) mm 250mm

d. Loads considered Typical Imposed load Percentage of imposed load Floor finish Roof live load Roof live load above staircase and lifts Lift roof live load Lift mechanical roof load Staircase dead load Staircase floor load Staircase live load Wall load under beam depth 600mm,W1 Wall load under beam depth 400mm,W2 Parapet wall load, W3 Wall load for swimming pool as shear wall load,W4

3kN/m2 25% 2kN/ m2 3kN/m2 0.75kN/m2 5kN/m2 10kN/m2 12.5kN/m2 5kN/m2 7.5kN/m2 12kN/m 13kN/m 4.5kN/m 8kN/m

e. Seismic forces Importance factor, I 1.0 Type of structure OMRF Response reduction factor 3 Seismic zones II and IV Seismic zone factor 0.10 and 0.24 Type of soil Medium soil

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 82

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

3.4ETABS MODEL GENERATION

Figure 5: Roof Live load 1.5kN/m2 under zone II and zone IV Figure 1: Plan view under zone II c

Figure 2: Elevation of RC building model 1 under zone II

Figure 6: Swimming floor load 12.67kN/m under zone II and zone IV

Figure 3: Live load 3kN/m2 under zone II and zone IV

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Figure 7: Wall load under zone II and zone IV

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 83

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Figure 9: Comparison of Extreme displacement (mm) along X-direction for Model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively

Figure 8: Parapet wall load 4.5kN/m under zone II and zone -IV

Table 3: Comparison of Extreme lateral displacement (mm) along Y-direction for Model 1 and 2 under zones II and IV respectively

4.RESULTS AND DISCUSIONS 4.1 LATERAL DISPLACEMENTS 4.1.1 EXTREME LATERAL DISPLACEMENT ALONG XDIRECTION Table 1: Comparison of Extreme lateral displacement(mm) along X-direction for model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively

Storey

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Linear static method Displacement along Xdirection Model 1 Model 2 (zone II) (zone IV) (mm) (mm) 17.2987 41.0835 16.6251 38.6765 15.8613 36.8501 14.8968 34.6696 13.7035 31.9392 12.3096 28.726 10.753 25.1185 9.0744 21.2136 7.3121 17.1037 5.5042 12.8801 3.6956 8.6503

4.1.2 EXTREME LATERALDISPLACEMENT ALONG YDIRECTION

Variation in %

58 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Storey

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Linear Static method Displacement along Ydirection Model 2 Model 1(zone (zone IV) II) (mm) (mm) 17.0933 40.7808 16.5758 39.356 15.8317 37.6108 14.8705 35.3536 13.6596 32.5091 12.2345 29.1467 10.634 25.3578 8.9015 21.2455 7.0821 16.9177 5.226 12.4948 3.3991 8.1352

Variation in % 58.1 57.9 57.9 57.9 58.0 58.0 58.1 58.1 58.1 58.2 58.2

Impact Factor value: 7.211

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 84

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

4.2 STOREY DRIFTS

4.2.2 EXTREME STOREY DRIFTS ALONG Y-DIRECTION

4.2.1 EXTREME STOREY DRIFTS ALONG X-DIRECTION

Table 5: Comparison of Extreme storey drift (mm)along Ydirection for model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively.

Table 4: Comparison of Extreme storey drift (mm) along Xdirection for model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively.

Storey 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Linear Static method Extreme Storey drift along X-direction Model 1 (Zone II) Model 2 (Zone IV) (mm) (mm) 0.369 0.692 0.273 0.642 0.342 0.642 0.419 1.002 0.487 1.166 0.541 1.002 0.582 1.395 0.61 1.162 0.324 1.498 0.324 1.497 0.324 1.447

Figure 11: Comparison of Extreme storey drift (mm) along X-direction for Model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively.

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Linear Static method Extreme Storey drift along Y-direction Storey 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Model 1 (Zone II) (mm) 0.328 0.285 0.328 0.426 0.496 0.553 0.596 0.623 0.634 0.622 0.582

Model 2 (Zone IV) (mm) 0.595 0.625 0.799 0.984 1.155 1.296 1.402 1.472 1.501 1.478 1.377

Figure 12: Comparison of Extreme storey drift (mm) along Y-direction for Model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 85

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

4.3 STORY SHEAR

4.3.2 EXTREME STORY SHEAR ALONG Y-DIRECTION

4.3.1 EXTREME STORY SHEAR ALONG X-DIRECTION

Table 7: Comparison of Extreme storey shear(kN) along Ydirection for Model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively

Table 6: Comparison of Extreme storey shear(kN) along Xdirection for model 1 and Model 2 under zones II and IV respectively Linear static method (Extreme story shears along X-direction) Storey

Model 2 (zone IV)

Model 1 (zone II) (kN) 124.58

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

429.65 745.26 1004.66 1213.17 1376.34 1499.72 1588.86 1649.31 1686.63 1706.37

(kN) 299 1031.17 1788.63 2411.19 2911.61 3303.21 3599.32 3813.25 3958.35 4047.92 4095.29

Storey 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Linear static method (Extreme story shear along Y-direction) Model 1 (zone II) Model 2 (zone IV) (kN) (kN) 124.58 299 429.65 1031.17 745.26 1788.63 1004.66 2411.19 1213.17 2911.61 1376.34 3303.21 1499.72 3599.32 1588.86 3813.25 1649.31 3958.35 1686.63 4047.92 1706.37 4095.29

Figure 14: Comparison of Extreme storey shear(kN) along X-direction for Model1 and Model2 under zones II and IV respectively.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Figure 13: Comparison of Extreme storey shear(kN) along X-direction for Model1 and Model2 under zones II and IV respectively.

1. Lateral displacements: it was found out that model 2 was nearly 60% more than model 1 in lateral displacements, as number of floors increases in structural building will lead to larger displacement. Maximum lateral displacement can be obtained in vertical irregular building; it is observed that there is increase in percentage of steel for this two structures with mass irregularity 2. Story Drift: It was witnessed extreme story drift at 4th floor was about 0.61mm in model 1 as well as 2th

ÂŠ 2018, IRJET

Impact Factor value: 7.211

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 86

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

www.irjet.net

floor was about 1.497mm in model 2 as higher story drift in X-direction, it was found out 3rd floor was about 0.634mm in model 1 and 3rd floor was about 1.501mm in model 2 as higher story drift in Ydirection, to avoid the damage of building under seismic forces the perilous inter storey drift would be limited to 0.004 times of floor height. 3. Story shears: Maximum storey shear takes place at 1st floor in model 1 and model 2 in both X-direction as well as Y-direction respectively. So we conclude the outcome of maximum story shear it was found out that both model 1 as well as model 2 will be having same story shear. it has been noted that quantity of irregularity is extreme, then critical shear force will be extreme.

4.1 POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE EFFORT The Scope for upcoming are prolonged further down 1. Other approaches of seismic analysis can be done for on this type of RC structures. 2. These buildings are achieved on several zones factors as well as several soil conditions. 3. Mass irregularity on structures can accomplished for different floors in this type of RC structures. 4. Outcome of Base shear parameter can be implemented for this type of buildings. 5. Wind analysis can be performed for these types of structures.

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[6]

N. Anvesh, et. al “Effect of Mass Irregularity on Reinforced Concrete Structure Using Etabs”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 4, Issue :10, October 2015, Page no :10091-10096, Andhra Pradesh, India.

[7]

Dileshwar Rana, et. al “Seismic Analysis of Regular and Vertical Geometric Irregular RCC Framed Building”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2, Issue:04, July 2015, Page no:1396-1401, Bhopal, India.

[8]

Neha P. Modakwar, et. al “Seismic Analysis of Structures with Irregularities”, ISOR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (ISOR-JMCE), ISSN: 2278-1684, 2014, Page no: 63-66, Nagpur, India.

[9]

Rupesh R. Pawade, et. al “Influence of Combine Vertical Irregularities in the Response of Earthquake Resistance RC structure”, Volume 6, Issue:10, October 2016, Page no :2970-2973, Aurangabad, India.

[10]

J. Saikh Sameer, et. al “Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular RC frame with Stiffness Irregularity at Ground floor”, International Conference on Recent Trends in engineering & Science, Volume 16, September 2016, Page no: 235-241, Aurangabad, India.

BIOGRAPHIES

REFERENCES [1]

Sharon L. Wood, et. al “Seismic response of R/C Frames with Irregular Profiles”, Journal of Structural Engineering ©ASCE, Volume 118, Issue :2, February 1992, Page no:545-566, Urbana.

[2]

Pradip Sarkar, et. al “Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building frames”, Engineering structures ©Elsevier, Volume 32, April 2010, Page no: 2175-2182, Orissa, India.

[3]

Adrian Fredrick C. Dya, et. al “Seismic vulnerability assessment of soft story irregular building using pushover analysis”, Procedia Engineering ©Elsevier, Volume 125, 2015, Page no: 925-932, Philippines.

[4]

Mr. Sagar B. Patil, et. al “Study of Behavior of Plan & Vertical Irregularity by Seismic Analysis”, International Journal for Scientific Research & Development, Volume 3, Issue :4, 2015, Page no: 2321-0613, India.

[5]

Rahul, et. al “Study of Vertical Irregularity of Tall RC Structure under Lateral load”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 4, Issue :8, August 2017, Page no: 1539-1544, Karnataka, India.

Impact Factor value: 7.211

Dheekshith K Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Srinivas school of Engineering, Mukka Mangaluru Karnataka.

NAVEEN KUMAR MS, did Bachelor of Engineering from Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere, Karnataka in 2016 and pursuing Master of Technology in Structural Engineering from Srinivas school of Engineering, Mangalore, Karnataka.

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Page 87

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018

Impact Factor value: 7.211

www.irjet.net

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Page 88